Replies

'Credibility' is simply the generally-accepted opinion of the group. The whole peer-review process is nothing more than one big appeal to the popular opinion of philosophical naturalists. No one with a shred of critical-thinking skills would be surprised that the conclusions beg the question of philosophical naturalism.

I'm a little curious, when you go to the doctor for a problem, and the doctor proposes a treatment that was first described in the peer-review literature (such as antibiotics for bacterial infection), do you reject that treatment? Would you be more accepting of a treatment you first read about in some free new-age publication you found lying about someplace?

If you need to take your car to a mechanic for repairs, are the certifications hanging on the wall a signal for you to walk out? Do you instead look for someone who has some tools and talks big about being better at car repair than any certified mechanic?

If you need to have your taxes done, does seeing that the accountant is a CPA make you turn around and walk out that door? Do you instead seek out some high school math whiz, because, after all, quality-control mechanisms really are nothing more than gate-keepers meant to keep out people who really know what they're talking about?

BTW, changing the name of the imaginary religion you ascribe to scientists after I deconstructed the other two names of this imaginary religion does not, in fact, establish that scientists have an imaginary religion.

"I'm a little curious, when you go to the doctor for a problem..."

"If you need to take your car to a mechanic for repairs.."

"If you need to have your taxes done..."

The fact that the doctor can observe the effect of antibiotics on an infection does not mean that his opinion on the origin of bacteria is accurate. The fact that a mechanic can fix a problem does not mean that cars self-assemble for no reason at all. The fact that an accountant can calculate my tax bill does not mean that government spontaneously appeared out of nothing.

Typical bait-and-switch tactics used by committed philosophical naturalists are so predictable and so laughable that it's difficult to believe that an honest 'scientist' would even use them.

"BTW, changing the name of the imaginary religion you ascribe to scientists after I deconstructed the other two names of this imaginary religion does not, in fact, establish that scientists have an imaginary religion."

My, my you are a legend in your own mind, aren't you.